Three more quickies:
In United States v. Espinal, No. 07-3128-cr (2d Cir. January 21, 2009), there was an inconsistency between the district court’s oral statement of the guideline range and the range contained in the written judgment. The court remanded the case for the “ministerial purpose” of amending the judgment to reflect the actual Guideline range that the court used.
In Watson v. United States, No. 07-0354-pr (2d Cir. January 21, 2009), the district court summarily dismissed a 2255 motion that claimed ineffectiveness of counsel. The circuit found both that there was an insufficient fatual record for summary dismissal and that the defendant had sufficiently alleged prejudice. It remanded the case for further proceedings.
United States v. Sergentakis, No. 07-0809-cr (2d Cir. Januayr 21, 2009), has an interesting discussion of loss calculation methodology in commercial bribery cases.
Comments are closed.